Maybe that's just a lack of understanding? Most banking websites rely on transport-layer security(SSL-TLS). The transmission medium hardly matters here. Even if someone is eavesdropping on a wireless signal, they'd need to break SSL-TLS to get yer data. you are far more susceptible to phishing and spyware attacks compared to wireless hacks.
You also forgot to mention - India's Union Minister of Communication and Information technology, Mr. Dayanidhi Maran, is a nephew of the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.
Hmm. A bitmap graphics editing application built with a vector rendering engine. I wonder if anybody posting here has actually *used* any of these products, let alone developed an application like this.
How does the foundation handle liability issues? If a driver doesnt work as advertised, who gets the blame? What happens if a buggy driver fries the device in question?
Classic slashdot. High on rhetoric, irrational arguments, and missing the point.
A developer can also reach many, many operating systems and hardware, including Mac OS X (and even Windows if you add cygwin), by writing POSIX compatable software, with one set of source code. (And even binaries to some extent - many Unixes have binary compatability with negligable overhead, especially with Linux.) I find that much more exciting than Microsoft's monopoly-won success. Why? Because POSIX is a *standard*, even one mandated by the government for purchasing (hence WinNT comes with a horribly crippled POSIX mode from MS included - this can be remedied though by third party products such as the open-source Cygwin). Because of these standards, your software *can* reach a lot of people - internet servers, which are accessed by a billion both users and non-users of Windows.
POSIX defines just the bare operating system services. If your're building a user-friendly GUI application that can be used by a layman, try using base POSIX services. So easy isnt it?
No, it was a function of IBM making their PC out of off-the-shelf parts and picking Microsoft to make an OS (MS-DOS) after the CEO of Digital Research (CP/M), their first choice (since it was a multi-platform business operating system de-facto standard at the time), didn't arrive at a meeting; legend has it while piloting his private airplane.
Again missing the point. A non-technical user can go sit in any of the world's internet cafes, and be productive enough to send an email, print out documents, hear music, without a MS in computer science. That's what the parent poster meant, by a reference implementation. Isnt that a good thing? Hell, even Linux distros are riding that wave, by implementing the same fscking interface. IBM making the hardware is fscking irrelevant here, it's the interface that matters.
So far your batting average is pretty poor, but that doesn't surprise me; someone crediting the IBM-PC commodizing hardware to Microsoft could only be refering to statements made by Windows marketing (I hear so often this claim that I think it comes from MS or their journalist lap-dogs and is not independently arived at.)
Name-calling and hurling invectives is fun, isnt it?
And in Magic Happy Land, that actually works without a problem.
But it doesnt have to. That's why in a good shop, there's actually a process for rolling-back the install, contingency plans, business continuity and disaster recovery. It's not a trivial process; even more important that there's a clear separation of responsibilities.
There's no need for a compromise. Developers write code & documentation. Installation/Deployment guides *are* required documentation. IT takes the software, and follows the guide.
Business applications are mostly consolidated on a few servers. IT guys know dependencies, time windows, batch runs and the whole shebang. A dev team has no business doing all this.
The idea is to load services in parallel, and replace the ancient Init system. Windows NT supposed does this; still, it's no match for a hand-tuned minimal init system, such as this or this. I tried this back in 2003, and had my desktop open in a maximum of 5 seconds. Bios ~1 sec, Kernel load time ~ 1 sec, Services+GUI ~3 secs. This was on a 1Ghz Celeron, with 128MB RAM. It also helped that I was running Sawfish, with no desktop widgets(no menus, toolbars, anything). Just a bunch of keyboard shortcuts to launch the apps I used. I stopped installing any new distros after that - none of them could offer a better user experience than what I had. It also helps in gaining a better understanding of your system - what are each services used for, how to do file system recovery, and esoteric details.
This is akin to Flash, but much more integrated with the.NET stack. An Avalon for the web, if you will. People have long wondered how ASP.NET will progress, and where the roadmap merges into the WinFx stack. Scott Guthrie's blog throws some light on that:
There's also a Channel 9 video about it. There's some initiative to make it cross-platform and Macs are supported now. MS is in a nice position now, to push this as a Windows update and get a Flash-player equivalent installed on all Windows PCs. Its based on XAML, and the spec is reasonably open. The Mono guys could work with the Xgl guys to deliver this on *nix platforms too.
I see that lots of people comment the current office versions are good enough - indeed they are to the casual user who sparingly uses them. However to the power users and developer community, they've been pretty lousy till now. Server-side document generation has been pathetic; weird and expensive COM-based controls, archaic limitations, and lousy templating support.
The ribbon UI may have its uses; but I guess its just a gimmick. The real value for this release is in the server-side development, XML stuff that's gone in. And this is pretty tough to market. Still, people will buy it, since the default format's changed; and the upgrade treadmill cant be avoided.
OpenOffice and its cousins missed the bus; the minimum they needed to do was atleast match MS Office's UI performance. Sadly, even MSO2K3 spanks OO. When the competition figures out how to make a snappy, feature-rich, stable product, they'll trouble MS.
Please understand the context of that statement. The OP seemed to indicate that supporting OSS somehow entitled Redhat to a succesful business operation. I was just pointing out that this does not need to be the case.
ISPs are Service providers; as long as people find value in their services, they'll remain in business. Same is the case with Redhat - their survival depends on the value of their support services. Companies dont run purely on goodwill. They need a viable business model. OSS or non-OSS has nothing to do with it.
I wish the beat your competition into the ground monopolist attitude that some people have would just die.
Bullshit. What's wrong with beating your competition to the ground? If Redhat has enough guts and innovation to hang on (which I believe they do), let them.
Or else they can die, like everybody else with a failed business model.
Something I have been wondering.... GCC now accepts Java source and emits either native binaries or Java bytecode. Can it take C/C++/etc and emit bytecode? If it is treating bytecode as just another target what if a C# frontend were written? Could gcc take C# on input and emit Java bytecode on the other end? And if a mono backend were added could it compile Java source to it? And if this all came to pass would it be a sure sign the end of times were at hand?
I know it's too late for anyone to read anyway -
Managed C++ in the Microsoft world does something very similar. However, there're certain limitations that come into the picture when targeting byte-code. It works reasonably well, and is a choice for people migrating into the managed code world with a large C++ codebase.
For converting C# code to Java and vice versa, checkout IKVM. It's an impressive piece of tech; folks have even converted Eclipse to run on Mono.
Devil's advocate time: Remember Computer science isnt about the plumbing; its about abstraction, algorithms and problem solving ability. Modern platforms allow modeling and thinking at a much higher level - instead of focussing on low-level arcana.
For example, lets take the author's wishlist - creating Pong. I'd wager that the game can be written in a lot more expressive manner in any higher-level language, compared to basic. Poking different screen locations arent a lot of fun; gorilla.bas gets old very soon. Kids like instant gratification(adults too!)- higher level languages are ideal for this.
They are not running some school project; they build operating systems that run on 99% of computers. So MS as a company needs to throw away their mature codebase and build a new operating system from scratch? And alienate millions of existing customers by breaking compatibility? And facilitate 3rd party apps instead of promoting their own products? Wishful thinking maybe; but insightful? hardly.
This leaves iPods, a Movie Store and the possibility of a new streaming Media device for the Tuesday event." Oh wow. I thought it was a new musical with Steve Jobs as the lead with a consort of white furry bunnies.
Slashdot Mirror
I cant imagine why parent is marked Troll. It's a ontopic reply, with informative commentary, directly from the source.
Maybe that's just a lack of understanding? Most banking websites rely on transport-layer security(SSL-TLS). The transmission medium hardly matters here. Even if someone is eavesdropping on a wireless signal, they'd need to break SSL-TLS to get yer data. you are far more susceptible to phishing and spyware attacks compared to wireless hacks.
You also forgot to mention - India's Union Minister of Communication and Information technology, Mr. Dayanidhi Maran, is a nephew of the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.
Hmm. A bitmap graphics editing application built with a vector rendering engine. I wonder if anybody posting here has actually *used* any of these products, let alone developed an application like this.
How does the foundation handle liability issues? If a driver doesnt work as advertised, who gets the blame? What happens if a buggy driver fries the device in question?
But it doesnt have to. That's why in a good shop, there's actually a process for rolling-back the install, contingency plans, business continuity and disaster recovery. It's not a trivial process; even more important that there's a clear separation of responsibilities.
There's no need for a compromise.
Developers write code & documentation.
Installation/Deployment guides *are* required documentation.
IT takes the software, and follows the guide.
Business applications are mostly consolidated on a few servers. IT guys know dependencies, time windows, batch runs and the whole shebang. A dev team has no business doing all this.
There've been discussions here and here.
The idea is to load services in parallel, and replace the ancient Init system. Windows NT supposed does this; still, it's no match for a hand-tuned minimal init system, such as this or this. I tried this back in 2003, and had my desktop open in a maximum of 5 seconds. Bios ~1 sec, Kernel load time ~ 1 sec, Services+GUI ~3 secs. This was on a 1Ghz Celeron, with 128MB RAM. It also helped that I was running Sawfish, with no desktop widgets(no menus, toolbars, anything). Just a bunch of keyboard shortcuts to launch the apps I used. I stopped installing any new distros after that - none of them could offer a better user experience than what I had. It also helps in gaining a better understanding of your system - what are each services used for, how to do file system recovery, and esoteric details.
WPF/E
This is akin to Flash, but much more integrated with the
Scott Guthrie's blog throws some light on that:
There's also a Channel 9 video about it.
There's some initiative to make it cross-platform and Macs are supported now. MS is in a nice position now, to push this as a Windows update and get a Flash-player equivalent installed on all Windows PCs. Its based on XAML, and the spec is reasonably open. The Mono guys could work with the Xgl guys to deliver this on *nix platforms too.
I see that lots of people comment the current office versions are good enough - indeed they are to the casual user who sparingly uses them. However to the power users and developer community, they've been pretty lousy till now. Server-side document generation has been pathetic; weird and expensive COM-based controls, archaic limitations, and lousy templating support.
The ribbon UI may have its uses; but I guess its just a gimmick. The real value for this release is in the server-side development, XML stuff that's gone in. And this is pretty tough to market. Still, people will buy it, since the default format's changed; and the upgrade treadmill cant be avoided.
OpenOffice and its cousins missed the bus; the minimum they needed to do was atleast match MS Office's UI performance. Sadly, even MSO2K3 spanks OO. When the competition figures out how to make a snappy, feature-rich, stable product, they'll trouble MS.
Please understand the context of that statement.
The OP seemed to indicate that supporting OSS somehow entitled Redhat to a succesful business operation.
I was just pointing out that this does not need to be the case.
ISPs are Service providers; as long as people find value in their services, they'll remain in business. Same is the case with Redhat - their survival depends on the value of their support services. Companies dont run purely on goodwill. They need a viable business model. OSS or non-OSS has nothing to do with it.
Or else they can die, like everybody else with a failed business model.
Or be bought by somebody else.
The open-source revolution doesnt pay the bills.
Thats 11,900 you snivelling EUian b4stards. Join the goddamned rest of the world already :P
The spelling maybe?
This is too extreme even for slashdot...
Devil's advocate time: Remember Computer science isnt about the plumbing; its about abstraction, algorithms and problem solving ability. Modern platforms allow modeling and thinking at a much higher level - instead of focussing on low-level arcana.
For example, lets take the author's wishlist - creating Pong. I'd wager that the game can be written in a lot more expressive manner in any higher-level language, compared to basic. Poking different screen locations arent a lot of fun; gorilla.bas gets old very soon. Kids like instant gratification(adults too!)- higher level languages are ideal for this.
+5 insightful indeed.
They are not running some school project; they build operating systems that run on 99% of computers. So MS as a company needs to throw away their mature codebase and build a new operating system from scratch? And alienate millions of existing customers by breaking compatibility? And facilitate 3rd party apps instead of promoting their own products? Wishful thinking maybe; but insightful? hardly.
This leaves iPods, a Movie Store and the possibility of a new streaming Media device for the Tuesday event."
Oh wow. I thought it was a new musical with Steve Jobs as the lead with a consort of white furry bunnies.
Linky.
Office 2003, Sharepoint (WSS) and LCS too..